[openbiblio-dev] [pd-discuss] Bibliographic Metadata Guide

Tue Sep 6 11:20:04 UTC 2011

Hi Jim and everoyne,
thank you all for you feedback - any comment is greatly appreciated
and please do keep contributing !
A lot of discussion is currently going on in the Bibliographic
Metadata Guide's etherpad: http://okfnpad.org/metadata
I think it is important that the community is and remains involved in
this discussion because we want to reach a consensus from the
community.
So if anyone is either interested or concerned by the use of metadata
standards in the bibliographic area, take a look at the pad:
http://okfnpad.org/metadata
the most interesting sections at the moments are: ##Goals, and
##Issues to be addressed
any contribution and feedback is welcome   ;)
Thank you !

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Jim Pitman <pitman at stat.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Primavera De Filippi <primavera.defilippi at okfn.org> wrote:
>
>> The term "Auto-descriptive Metadata" was indeed unclear, I changed it
>> into "Self-descriptive Metadata" - whenever the metadata contains
>> sufficient information for the component and its relationship to the
>> conference series to be completely self-describing, versus "Non
>> Self-descriptive Metadata" - whenever the meaning of the markup
>> language is implemented in the logic of the parser, i.e. the metadata
>> is not self-descriptive.  Do you think that's more accurate and clear
>> ?
>
>
> No!  What does "relationship to the conference series" mean for a book?
> What does "completely self-describing" mean?  Why does this distinction
> (whatever is intended) make a useful categorization?
> Also, in the pad I see something different again:
>>Main distinction is between:
>>1. self-descriptive metadata (based on a metadata data model)
>>2. the rest
>
> The meaning of this distinction is not  clear to me. Take for example BibTeX.
> This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX provides an almost machine-readable
> description of the BibTeX data schema. Isnt that a metadata data model?
>
> I see DC is under both 1. and 2.
> I am left with no idea what is intended by the distinction or why it might be useful.
>
> --Jim
>